Ched Evans

Status
Not open for further replies.


That's just an estimate from the defence team's expert who will obviously get it as low as he can. Her blood wasn't actually tested at the point of the rape/at 4am, or at any time when an accurate countback could be worked out.
And if she is so sober, why is she falling down 'drunk' on the video? It's the one piece of objective evidence about that night we do have. Well that and the 'I've got a girl' text.
In my mind (and obviously the jury's) someone who can't stand up is also likely to be too intoxicated to give informed consent to sex...

The fact that so many people seem so determined to excuse this scroat is really rather odd....
 
andymcnish said:
She woke up alone in a strange hotel room having pissed herself and according to herself having no memory of the hotel from the night before.

There is plenty of evidence that she was too intoxicated to give proper consent and given her relatively moderate alcohol consumption she believed her drink had been spiked. It's certainly open to the jury to draw that conclusion even if they don't know who spiked her drinks. But it doesn't really matter how she came to be out of it provided it was open on t h e evidence for the jury to decide she was. Which it clearly did.

If she was too intoxicated, then it's just a question of whether Evans genuinely believed she did consent. If he didn't stop to think about it it's rape. He will have given oral evidence of both what he said she said and of his state of mind. The jury's assessment of his credibility in the witness box is crucial (as it was in the case of the girl telling the truth about her lack of memory.
Click to expand...

The bit in bold is entirely her story. There's no proof of a drink being spiked. It's speculation based on her story. There was evidence of her walking into the hotel of her own accord and having enough awareness to realise she'd forgot her Pizza and go back for it.

Surely, it's up to the Jury, using the evidence provided (not how guilty he looked in the stand) to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she was incapable of giving consent. Even if they dis that, which I'm unsure of, the logic to find Clayton not guilty seems misguided to say the least.
 
Dappa said:
He's a kernt who should have been set on fire, then we wouldn't need to debate this f***ing ridiculous thread.
Click to expand...
f***ing bang on mate, dead right. Would all the apologists on here still be backing this piece of shite if the girl was their sister? Easy when the mess is somebody elses I guess. Evans is a convicted rapist which pitches him into the lowest category of human existence. How and why people defend his actions / rights is beyond belief.
 
andymcnish said:
That's just an estimate from the defence team's expert who will obviously get it as low as he can. Her blood wasn't actually tested at the point of the rape/at 4am, or at any time when an accurate countback could be worked out.
And if she is so sober, why is she falling down 'drunk' on the video? It's the one piece of objective evidence about that night we do have. Well that and the 'I've got a girl' text.
In my mind (and obviously the jury's) someone who can't stand up is also likely to be too intoxicated to give informed consent to sex...

The fact that so many people seem so determined to excuse this scroat is really rather odd....
Click to expand...
Aye all right :lol:

I didn't say she was sober.

She could though.
 
And anyone thinking this is like Cantona needs their head examining, man. That was a BNP scroat screaming racist abuse in his face. This was a pissed girl on a bed he been summoned to take advantage of. If you really think they were both 'asking for it equally' then you have a seriously deficient understanding of personal morality...[/QUOTE]




andymcnish said:
And anyone thinking this is like Cantona needs their head examining, man. That was a BNP scroat screaming racist abuse in his face. This was a pissed girl on a bed he been summoned to take advantage of. If you really think they were both 'asking for it equally' then you have a seriously deficient understanding of personal morality...
Click to expand...

My original OP was about the football authorities wanting respect, what respect did Evans show the victim. As in the case of Cantons or other related incidents l mention what respect did they show the paying public.

Personal morality is exactly that, Personal,but l respect your view
 
You are still confused marra. It's a two stage test.

A. Was she too intoxicated to give informed consent to sex.? The jury, havibg seen the video footage and seen and heard her testimony and that of the two accused decided that she was.

B. In the case of each of the accused, did he nevertheless have a genuine belief in her consent?

It's B that is answered differently for each defendant. There is no logical inconsistency in the jury finding their states of mind to be different at the point of intercourse.

Now please stop apologising for a rapist...
 
andymcnish said:
That's just an estimate from the defence team's expert who will obviously get it as low as he can. Her blood wasn't actually tested at the point of the rape/at 4am, or at any time when an accurate countback could be worked out.
And if she is so sober, why is she falling down 'drunk' on the video? It's the one piece of objective evidence about that night we do have. Well that and the 'I've got a girl' text.
In my mind (and obviously the jury's) someone who can't stand up is also likely to be too intoxicated to give informed consent to sex...

The fact that so many people seem so determined to excuse this scroat is really rather odd....
Click to expand...
Have you been around many late teens early 20 girls who have been drinking?

I've only just come out of uni in the last few years and so was around 17-19 year olds all the time and girls normally can't stand up for shit even after about 3 drinks, normally due to ridiculous foot wear.

Using "that drunk person fell over so they can't say they consent to sex" isn't a good argument in my book. If it is, then the majority of hook ups outside of clubs are rape.
 
There is more than enough evidence for a jury to find she was too intoxicated to give informed consent.
The jury thought so. The trial judge (in letting the case go to the jury) thought so.
4 separate appeal court judges thought so.

But you've read a website set up by Evans' mates and think different?

Righto..
 
andymcnish said:
You are still confused marra. It's a two stage test.

A. Was she too intoxicated to give informed consent to sex.? The jury, havibg seen the video footage and seen and heard her testimony and that of the two accused decided that she was.

B. In the case of each of the accused, did he nevertheless have a genuine belief in her consent?

It's B that is answered differently for each defendant. There is no logical inconsistency in the jury finding their states of mind to be different at the point of intercourse.

Now please stop apologising for a rapist...
Click to expand...
Are you supposed to be talking to me? :lol:
 
Flash Gordon said:
I was of the belief that the criminal justice system was based on facts. A jury member looking into Evans' eyes and deciding that they don't believe him (without evidence proving otherwise) isn't good enough for me.

Again your point about her being drugged is speculation as it wasn't proven. It's every bit as outrageous as those suggesting that the girl was a slag looking for a pay day.

Surely everyone is entitled to a fair trial based on evidence?
Click to expand...

The reality is that a lot of trials do come down to who the jury like/ believe and any barrister will tell you that influencing the jury's opinion of a witness/ victim/ accused is a massive part of their strategy. That's just life.

andymcnish said:
So you are second guessing the judge, the jury, the appeal court judge who refused the appeal and the 3 judge appeals panel of judges who confirmed the appeal refusal?
Impressive.

There is video of the girl being falling over drunk (or otherwise intoxicated). She woke up alone in a strange hotel room having pissed herself and according to herself having no memory of the hotel from the night before.

There is plenty of evidence that she was too intoxicated to give proper consent and given her relatively moderate alcohol consumption she believed her drink had been spiked. It's certainly open to the jury to draw that conclusion even if they don't know who spiked her drinks. But it doesn't really matter how she came to be out of it provided it was open on t h e evidence for the jury to decide she was. Which it clearly did.

If she was too intoxicated, then it's just a question of whether Evans genuinely believed she did consent. If he didn't stop to think about it it's rape. He will have given oral evidence of both what he said she said and of his state of mind. The jury's assessment of his credibility in the witness box is crucial (as it was in the case of the girl telling the truth about her lack of memory). They obviously decided he was a lying toerag. It's the entire point of the jury system to have them assess that credibility and I have no reason to doubt they made the right decision here. And nor have you.
Click to expand...

Banging your head against a brick wall mate
 
gavinmcant said:
The reality is that a lot of trials do come down to who the jury like/ believe and any barrister will tell you that influencing the jury's opinion of a witness/ victim/ accused is a massive part of their strategy. That's just life
Click to expand...

That is completely wrong. Someone shouldn't be sent to prison because the jury don't like you. The presumption of innocent until proven guilty is the law and what should be upheld. "That's just life" isn't a good enough answer.

andymcnish said:
You are still confused marra. It's a two stage test.

A. Was she too intoxicated to give informed consent to sex.? The jury, havibg seen the video footage and seen and heard her testimony and that of the two accused decided that she was.

B. In the case of each of the accused, did he nevertheless have a genuine belief in her consent?

It's B that is answered differently for each defendant. There is no logical inconsistency in the jury finding their states of mind to be different at the point of intercourse.

Now please stop apologising for a rapist...
Click to expand...

I'm not apologising for anyone, I'm asking questions which I believe to be valid.

How could Clayton have a genuine belief in her consent but not Evans? If anything, Clayton had spent more time with her and been more aware of her intoxication levels than Evans was. Thr decision they have come to is not logical for that reason imo.
 
Last edited:
Flash Gordon said:
That is completely wrong. Someone shouldn't be sent to prison because the jury don't like you. The presumption of innocent until proven guilty is the law and what should be upheld. "That's just life" isn't a good enough answer.
Click to expand...

Hey am not saying it is but the evidence is often eyewitness accounts and if, for example, a barrister can undermine someone's account by focusing upon their frailties, cast doubt on their motivation for being a witness, their reliability, they certainly will. In rape cases, very often it comes down to how likeable or believable the victim is. It's human nature when a jury gets behind closed doors, their decision is obviously influenced by their own experiences, prejudices. And that really is just life.
 
gavinmcant said:
Hey am not saying it is but the evidence is often eyewitness accounts and if, for example, a barrister can undermine someone's account by focusing upon their frailties, cast doubt on their motivation for being a witness, their reliability, they certainly will. In rape cases, very often it comes down to how likeable or believable the victim is. It's human nature when a jury gets behind closed doors, their decision is obviously influenced by their own experiences, prejudices. And that really is just life.
Click to expand...

Fair points, as long as it's not the only evidence.
 
Flash Gordon said:
That is completely wrong. Someone shouldn't be sent to prison because the jury don't like you. The presumption of innocent until proven guilty is the law and what should be upheld. "That's just life" isn't a good enough answer.



I'm not apologising for anyone, I'm asking questions which I believe to be valid.

How could Clayton have a genuine belief in her consent but not Evans? If anything, Clayton had spent more time with her and been more aware of her intoxication levels than Evans was. Thr decision they have come to is not logical for that reason imo.
Click to expand...

It's not because the jury don't like you - it's because they don't believe you. That is the jury's main job after all- to assess the credibility of witnesses.

As for Clayton's mental state I don't know why the jury found he thought she consented - maybe he was more pissed than Evans - maybe she's snogged him or make sexual approaches to him that led him to genuinely believe she gave consent. Maybe the act of her voluntarily accompanying him to hotel room was sufficient to tip the scales of doubt in his favour?

Whereas Evans turns up later, perhaps more sober and in a different state of mind, walks into the hotel room with his cronies at the window trying and I assume failing to film it ( if they did film it and then destroyed it there are more inferences that can be drawn of course), screws her and slips out the fire exit...

There simply isn't any legal issue at all the jury deciding that they weren't sure the prosecution has displaced the burden of proof for Clayton but had for Evans.
 
andymcnish said:
It's not because the jury don't like you - it's because they don't believe you. That is the jury's main job after all- to assess the credibility of witnesses.

As for Clayton's mental state I don't know why the jury found he thought she consented - maybe he was more pissed than Evans - maybe she's snogged him or make sexual approaches to him that led him to genuinely believe she gave consent. Maybe the act of her voluntarily accompanying him to hotel room was sufficient to tip the scales of doubt in his favour?

Whereas Evans turns up later, perhaps more sober and in a different state of mind, walks into the hotel room with his cronies at the window trying and I assume failing to film it ( if they did film it and then destroyed it there are more inferences that can be drawn of course), screws her and slips out the fire exit...

There simply isn't any legal issue at all the jury deciding that they weren't sure the prosecution has displaced the burden of proof for Clayton but had for Evans.
Click to expand...

Do you think there may have been an argument for the pair to get charged with a conspiracy from what we know? Obviously phones would have been looked at and the fact they weren't suggests there was nothing there but their behaviour does seen pre- planned and predatory.
 
andymcnish said:
I just don't understand why there are so many apologists on this board for this convicted scroat trying to second guess the jury...

And, no, most of us have never acted like Evans I hope. This isn't two pissed people copping off and having sex. Not remotely.
Click to expand...
Is this forum routinely defending rapists or is it just possible that the conviction doesn't seem that sound.
 
gavinmcant said:
Do you think there may have been an argument for the pair to get charged with a conspiracy from what we know? Obviously phones would have been looked at and the fact they weren't suggests there was nothing there but their behaviour does seen pre- planned and predatory.
Click to expand...

I think Clayton just got away with that one - his message didn't say 'Come here - I've got a girl for the pair of us' etc. - I think it was just ambiguous enough to save him. After all if a mate texted me 'I've got a girl!!' on a night out - I would't immediately think to pile in a taxi for a 3 way - but then again I'm not Ched Evans.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top